Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[BigRedBuster]

The number of abortions has steadily gone down since the 1970s.  So has teenage pregnancies.  During that time, we have had improvements in contraception and sex education and healthcare.

 

We all agree (I think) that there are certain situations where an abortion isn't a choice, it's a medical procedure that's needed.  We also can all agree there are certain situations where the situation is just so horrible that an abortion is the unfortunate best alternative (11 year old rape victim).  

 

What seems clear to me is, the number of women using abortion for birth control has steadily dropped.  The percentage of abortions that are for legitimate reasons that most of us can all understand why the woman is having one, has increased.  

 

So, the abortion situation is very very different now (well, prior to RvW being overturned) than it was in the 70s....for the better.  Everyone should be able to agree with that.

 

It boggles my mind that we all can't realize we just need to keep moving in that direction.  Fewer unwanted pregnancies.  Fewer abortions for birth control.  Better healthcare for pregnant women. Better support for women who are pregnant so they can support themselves and their babies.

But...for some reason, we need to upset the entire apple cart and some try to ban abortion completely and think they know better than Drs and women about what should or needs to be done.  So....we now have women NOT being able to get the critical healthcare they need....because of one side being radically opposed to anyone getting the procedure.

 

Oh...and that same party wants to do away with sex education and limit contraception.

 

Yep...that makes sense.

[JJ Husker]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

The number of abortions has steadily gone down since the 1970s.  So has teenage pregnancies.  During that time, we have had improvements in contraception and sex education and healthcare.

 

We all agree (I think) that there are certain situations where an abortion isn't a choice, it's a medical procedure that's needed.  We also can all agree there are certain situations where the situation is just so horrible that an abortion is the unfortunate best alternative (11 year old rape victim).  

 

What seems clear to me is, the number of women using abortion for birth control has steadily dropped.  The percentage of abortions that are for legitimate reasons that most of us can all understand why the woman is having one, has increased.  

 

So, the abortion situation is very very different now (well, prior to RvW being overturned) than it was in the 70s....for the better.  Everyone should be able to agree with that.

 

It boggles my mind that we all can't realize we just need to keep moving in that direction.  Fewer unwanted pregnancies.  Fewer abortions for birth control.  Better healthcare for pregnant women. Better support for women who are pregnant so they can support themselves and their babies.

But...for some reason, we need to upset the entire apple cart and some try to ban abortion completely and think they know better than Drs and women about what should or needs to be done.  So....we now have women NOT being able to get the critical healthcare they need....because of one side being radically opposed to anyone getting the procedure.

I agree with this but I think it is false to assume that we “all” agree. Red state R politicians and religious zealots have been proving over and over and over that they are unwilling to make allowances for situations that reasonable people would agree on. Like you said, one side is radically opposed to reason. Seems to be the same source of all of our political ailments.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I agree with this but I think it is false to assume that we “all” agree. Red state R politicians and religious zealots have been proving over and over and over that they are unwilling to make allowances for situations that reasonable people would agree on. Like you said, one side is radically opposed to reason. Seems to be the same source of all of our political ailments.

When I said "all", I meant everyone on this forum.  If there is someone who doesn't agree....let them speak up.

 

No woman should have to go through this.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

 

This was at 22 weeks.  It could have very easily happened in the third trimester too.

[JJ Husker]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

When I said "all", I meant everyone on this forum.  If there is someone who doesn't agree....let them speak up.

 

No woman should have to go through this.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

 

This was at 22 weeks.  It could have very easily happened in the third trimester too.

Well I gave somebody on this forum, who has not been exceedingly clear, the chance to answer this and the silence is deafening.

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Well I gave somebody on this forum, who has not been exceedingly clear, the chance to answer this and the silence is deafening.

If you are talking about me, I answered your question, exceedingly clearly!  Do you need me to copy and paste the answer for you?   

[Archy1221]

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

20 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I’ve always felt 12 weeks was a reasonable compromise.

Just in case it wasn’t clear

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Just in case it wasn’t clear

So, anything after that, should be illegal.

[knapplc]

The horrors inflicted on these women were exactly what we told you would happen. 

 

The cruelty is the point. 

[Mike Mcdee]

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The horrors inflicted on these women were exactly what we told you would happen. 

 

The cruelty is the point. 

You would say this is a feature of the legislation, not a flaw?

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, anything after that, should be illegal.

No.   Anything after that should be relegated to a health of the mother/viability of the baby situation.  IMO.   
 

 

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Mike Mcdee said:

You would say this is a feature of the legislation, not a flaw?

 

If it isn't a feature, it's certainly pure indifference.

[BigRedBuster]

32 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

No.   Anything after that should be relegated to a health of the mother/viability of the baby situation.  IMO.   
 

 

so, your answer that you posted to @JJ Husker really didn't answer the question about third trimester abortions.

[Archy1221]

31 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

so, your answer that you posted to @JJ Husker really didn't answer the question about third trimester abortions.

Not sure what you are talking about because this was his question that prompted the discussion….Notice he didn’t ask about third trimester abortion! 

 

How about you? Should abortion be allowed at 6 weeks? 8 weeks? 12 weeks? Ever?

[JJ Husker]

20 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ve always felt 12 weeks was a reasonable compromise.  

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

No.   Anything after that should be relegated to a health of the mother/viability of the baby situation.  IMO.   
 

 

In theory I like it.

But I’m curious how you ban (make illegal) abortions after 12 weeks and then make allowances for health of the mother/viability of the baby after 12 weeks. That seems to be a feature that none of your red state R friends are making an allowance for.

Do you really want the government involved in determining health issues of the mother and viability issues of the baby? That’s the only way I can see that you can ban and make allowances.  Maybe you could talk to your R politician friends and try to prevent all these tragic situations that you assured us would not happen when RvW was overturned?

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

In theory I like it.

But I’m curious how you ban (make illegal) abortions after 12 weeks and then make allowances for health of the mother/viability of the baby after 12 weeks. That seems to be a feature that none of your red state R friends are making an allowance for.

Do you really want the government involved in determining health issues of the mother and viability issues of the baby? That’s the only way I can see that you can ban and make allowances.  Maybe you could talk to your R politician friends and try to prevent all these tragic situations that you assured us would not happen when RvW was overturned?

1)  I’m glad you could disregard your previous post and admit I answered your question.  
 

2) how do you make abortion on demand illegal after 12 weeks while having exceptions?  You make a law.  
 

3) do I want government involved?   Sure, they make the laws so who else would you prefer to do it?  IMO the health of the mother/viability of fetus should be determined by the attending physician.  Make it broad to give the physician the comfort of making a recommendation based on how the patient presents.